Appeal 2007-1793
Application 10/911,196
We agree with the Appellants. Hubweber discloses a gas spring having a
cylinder 1, in which is provided a piston rod 2 with a piston 3 and a locking
arrangement (Findings of Fact 1, 2). The locking arrangement locks the piston
rod 2 by cooperation of a wall 4, a collet 7, a spring 9, and a clamping collar 12
(Finding of Fact 3). Hubweber‘s cylinder 1 extends from a closed lower end to an
inwardly offset upper edge, such that all of Hubweber’s locking arrangement
elements are disposed entirely within the internal chamber of cylinder 1 (Findings
of Fact 4, 5). Accordingly, Hubweber does not anticipate claim 27 because it does
not disclose “a portion of said locking arrangement positioned outwardly of said
top end of said housing” as claimed (Finding of Fact 6). Hubweber also does not
anticipate dependent claims 37, 39, and 41, which depend from claim 27, for the
same reasons provided supra.
The Appellants further argue that Hubweber does not anticipate independent
claim 37 [sic, 43], because Hubweber’s braking elements are not secured to the
cylinder (Appeal Br. 6). Claim 37 is not, however, an independent claim, nor does
it require the locking arrangement to be secured to the cylinder. Independent claim
43, to which the Appellants may have been referring2, is directed to a method of
releasably locking a spring rod of a spring system comprising “providing a locking
arrangement that is at least partially secured to said housing.”3 As we found supra,
2 The remainder of the paragraph on page 6 of Appeal Brief discussing this
distinction between the claimed invention and Hubweber refers to claim 43.
3 Claim 43 does not recite a limitation similar to claim 27 that a portion of the
locking arrangement is positioned outwardly of the top end of the housing.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013